Effect of Musical Experience on Cochlear Frequency Resolution: An Estimation of PTCs, DLF and SOAEs - The Journal of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
J Int Adv Otol 2021; 17(4): 313-318 • DOI: 10.5152/iao.2021.8477 Original Article Effect of Musical Experience on Cochlear Frequency Resolution: An Estimation of PTCs, DLF and SOAEs Konika Kakar1 , J. Prajna Bhat2 , Suresh Thontadarya3 1 Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Samvaad Institute of Speech and Hearing, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 2 Department of Audiology, Samvaad Institute of Speech and Hearing, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 3 Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Dr. S.R Chandrashekhar Institute of Speech and Hearing, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India ORCID IDs of the authors: K.K. 0000-0001-8636-4582; J.P.B. 0000-0001-8237-5241; S.T. 0000-0003-3914-5007 Cite this article as: Kakar K, Prajna Bhat J, Thontadarya S. Effect of musical experience on cochlear frequency resolution: An estimation of PTCs, DLF and SOAEs. J Int Adv Otol. 2021; 17(4): 313-318. BACKGROUND: There is a lot of debate on whether musical experience/training can affect cochlear filter characteristics and thereby enhance frequency resolution skills in musicians (Ms). Thus, the objective of the study was to compare between Ms and non-musicians (NMs) and correlate the frequency resolution skills with years of musical experience, the difference limen for frequency (DLF), and the Q10 values of psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs) measured at 2 characteristic frequencies (CFs), 1000 and 4000 Hz. The secondary objective was to find out whether sponta- neous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) can be recorded among Ms more frequently than among NMs. METHODS: Thirty-six listeners with normal hearing participated in the study. They were 18 Ms with a minimum of 8 years of musical experience, and 18 NMs. Forward-masked PTCs and DLF tests were assessed for each listener in the right ear at 2 CFs, 1 and 4 kHz, and SOAEs were measured using standard protocol. RESULTS: The results obtained indicated that values of the psychophysical measures, DLF and Q10, were better among the Ms group. Statistically significant differences were seen when measurements were done at 1 KHz and 4 KHz. SOAEs were recorded in a higher number of Ms than NMs. Musical experience had a moderate positive correlation with PTC Q10 values at both 1 and 4 kHz, but not DLF values. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that musical experience enhances peripheral filtering, and thereby betters cochlear frequency selectivity in Ms. KEYWORDS: Frequency selectivity, musicianship, cochlear filtering, psychophysical tuning curve, pitch perception INTRODUCTION Musicians (Ms) are a specialized group of listeners, as music writing or performing involves such intricate elements like pitch and rhythm, where a single off-tune note can make a huge difference. Earlier researches show that Ms display extraordinary pitch perception skills at both cortical and sub-cortical levels. Electrophysiological studies have largely concluded higher pitch-coding ability among Ms.1-5 However, these experience-dependent enhancements could also possibly be at the level of the cochlea, as it is the first structure to influence the sound in terms of frequency resolution, thus partially accounting for pitch perception.6 Another possibility could be enhanced efferent feedback by the medial olivocochlear system (MOC) due to musical training.7-10 There are physiological measurements, such as stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs), directly aiming to capture musical influ- ence on cochlear activity, which report Ms to have enhanced SFOAE amplitudes compared to non-musicians (NMs).11 However, comparison studies evaluating frequency selectivity at the peripheral level between Ms and NMs in the Western as well as the Indian scenario are very few. They usually incorporate behavioral measurements of pitch or rhythm identification, or psychophysi- cal measures such as difference limen for frequency (DLF) and psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs). Ms have been reported to have lower DLF scores than NM.12-15 However, PTCs have shown mixed results. In a few studies, PTCs showed significant differences, where Ms had better Q10 values than NMs when measured at 4 kHz characteristic frequency (CF),16,17 or at more than 2 CFs.18 Other literatures have shown no difference at any of the CFs.19,20 Thus, the question still remains whether cochlear mechanisms contribute toward better pitch perception in Ms. Moreover, there are no studies for PTCs among Ms trained in Indian classical music. Ms also differ in terms of training method received, especially musical scale training, ear training, and structure of training. Corresponding author: Konika Kakar, e-mail: konikakakar@gmail.com Content of this journal is licensed under a Received: July 17, 2020 • Accepted: November 26, 2020 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Available online at www.advancedotology.org 4.0 International License. 313
J Int Adv Otol 2021; 17(4): 313-318
Need for the Study Instrumentation
Few studies have probed the perceptual benefits in Ms due to periph- Air-conduction hearing thresholds were measured with a calibrated
eral filtering. Moreover, research in the last decade has remained clinical audiometer MAICO MA-53 with TDH 49 Earphones with
equivocal on this issue, largely due to difficulty in carrying out stud- MX-41/AR ear cushions, and bone conduction (BC) was measured
ies among a large number of subjects, the method of psychophysical using B-71 Radioear bone vibrator. Immittance audiometry was done
measurement being particularly difficult to repeat, and other such with AmpliVox middle-ear analyzer. Spontaneous otoacoustic emis-
methodological issues. Hence, there is a strong need to gather data sions (SOAEs) and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs)
on different sets of Ms in order to understand Ms’ and NMs’ ability or were measured via standard protocol provided by Neuro-Audio soft-
performance on pitch measures and their cochlear frequency selec- ware (v.2010) in an HP laptop with Windows 8 processing system via
tivity skills. standard foam ear tips. DLF was measured using MLP software in
MATLAB (The MathWorks, Natick, MA).21For PTCs, custom-built coding
Aim of the Study was done in MATLAB, in a Lenovo Z580 laptop with Windows 7 pro-
The aim of the present study is to compare frequency selectivity skills cessing system. The output was routed through a Focusrite Scarlett
between Ms and NMs. 2i2 soundcard (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, 2nd Gen Audio Interface) and
delivered monoaurally to the right earphone of a Sennheiser HD180
The objectives include: headset.
• Comparing the 2 groups for frequency discrimination using DLF; Procedure
• Comparing the 2 groups for cochlear tuning using PTCs measured at All tests were carried out in a sound-treated room with noise levels
2 CFs; and within the permissible limits (ANSI S3.1-1999).22 All the participants
• Comparing the 2 groups for presence of SOAEs and correlating them answered a self-administered questionnaire pertaining to their
with PTC Q10 values. musical history, including age at commencement of their musical
training, years of musical experience, their primary and secondary
METHOD instruments and how they tune them, handedness, their hearing
health, noise exposure, hearing loss or tinnitus complaints, and also
Participants their usage of antibiotics, drugs, alcohol, or smoking. Otoscopy was
Eighteen participants, including vocalists and instrumentalists, who performed to rule out confounding factors impacting the ear canal
had been Ms from a young age and who were in the age range of 22-33 or tympanic membrane. Air-conduction (AC) hearing thresholds
years, were recruited for the study. Their mean age was 25.3years (SD: were measured at octave frequencies from 250 Hz to 8000 Hz via
2.98 years). Further, another group of subjects, NMs who were age- Modified Hughson and Westlake procedures using a 5 dB step size.
matched to the musician group, were recruited as the control group. Bone conduction (BC) thresholds were measured for 250 Hz, 1 kHz,
They had no formal training in music nor did they practice singing/ and 4 kHz. Immittance audiometry was done with 226 Hz probe
play an instrument as a hobby. Their mean age was 24.1 years (SD: tone, and ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflex thresholds
2.33 years). All participants had normal hearing sensitivity (thresh- were also measured for all the participants. TEOAEs were measured
olds ≤20 dB HL; 250-8000 Hz for both AC and BC) with no history of in order to know the intactness of cochlear micro physiology and to
middle-ear, neurological, or psychological abnormality. The Ms had rule out NIHL. Furthermore, an online hearing test, called the tone-
a minimum of 8 years of musical experience and acknowledged ≥ 1 deaf test, was done and all were screened for tone deafness includ-
hour of practice daily with their instrument or voice. ing NMs.23 All the participants cleared the prerequisites; post which,
psychophysical measurements such as DLF and forward-masked
PTCs were done. Lastly, SOAE’s were measured objectively to mea-
MAIN POINTS sure frequency tuning for the cochlea. The following is the protocol
used for each test:
• This study explores the effect of learning music on behavioral
measures of frequency selectivity, using PTCs and DLF. While infor- Psychophysical Tuning Curves (PTC)
mation on cortical and brainstem electrophysiological measures Frequency selectivity of the auditory system was assessed for each
are available, there is a lack of information on measures that- listener in the right ear at 2 CFs of 1 and 4 kHz using the forward-
check cochlear filtering process. Therefore, the present study was masking paradigm presented, in a 3-interval, forced-choice task.
undertaken. These CFs were chosen based on a previous study,24to avoid diffi-
• The results of DLF revealed that Ms significantly outperformed NMs culties with short-duration tones at lower frequencies where signal
by almost 4-5-fold.
bandwidth can exceed that of the filter.
• The Q10 values, a measure of PTCs, were also better for Ms than
NMs. This was true for both frequencies tested, 1 kHz and 4 kHz.
Earlier studies had shown that only Q10 measured at 4 kHz showed Stimuli
the effect of musical training. The masker was a 300 ms pure-tone gated with 5 ms cos square
• SOAEs were recorded in a greater number of Ms than NMs, the sig- ramps, and masker bandwidth was kept as 80 Hz. Tonal maskers had
nificance of which is unknown at the moment. normalized frequencies of 0.12, 0.25, 0.50, 0.62, 0.75, 0.87, 1.00, 1.05,
• Frequency resolution ability at cochlea as measured by behavioral 1.12, 1.25, and 1.50 relative to the probe’s CF. The masker was fol-
measures is better among Ms. This may have a bearing on their lowed immediately by a contiguous probe tone (0-ms masker–probe
enhanced pitch perception. offset). Probe signals were brief (35 ms, 10 ms ramps) sinusoidal
314Kakar et al. Musical Experience on Cochlear Frequency Resolution
tones (1 or 4 kHz), presented at a fixed low-level intensity (20 dB SL frequency difference between them. Stimuli were pure tones with
of listeners’ threshold at CF which was measured by estimating the onset and offset gated with 2 10-ms raised cosine ramps and pre-
absolute threshold at that frequency in the psychoacoustics tool- sented at 40 dB SL for all participants.
box in MATLAB) as the appropriate probe level is of specific inter-
est when determining PTCs. Each trial consisted of a masker–probe Instruction
tone combination. A high-pass noise (cutoff frequency: 1.2*CF Hz) The participants were asked to tell the temporal position (i.e., 1, 2, or
was presented at a low intensity (−50 dB spectrum level re probe) 3) of the tone which was heard different than the other 2 in terms of
concurrent with the masker–probe stimuli to limit off-frequency pitch.
listening effects. The test paradigm selected here is closer to the
paradigm used in Bidelman G, Schug J, Jennings S, and Bhagat S Procedure
(2014).16 The pure-tone pitch discrimination task was carried out using the
MLP.21 The MLP incorporates a large number of candidate psycho-
Procedure metric functions, and after each trial it calculates the probability
Listeners sat comfortably on a chair in a sound-proofed booth. of obtaining the listener’s response to all of the stimuli that were
Masked thresholds were measured adaptively by varying the presented given each psychometric function. The psychometric
level of the masker with the probe fixed at 20 dB SL. A fixed-signal function yielding the highest probability is used to determine the
method is preferable to a fixed-masker level (i.e., adaptively vary- stimulus to be presented on the next trial. Within about 12 trials, the
ing probe level) as it provides a more accurate depiction of audi- MLP usually converges on a reasonably stable estimate of the most
tory filter shape. Based on the first few observations, the normalized likely psychometric function, which then can be used to estimate
frequencies far from 1.00 or CF were chosen first for the participant threshold.25 Stimuli were recorded at a sampling rate of 44 100 Hz.
to understand the task, as it provided a less difficult situation, bet- A 3-interval forced-choice method using an MLP was employed to
ter detection of probe tone, and better performance achievement. track an 80% correct response criterion. Randomized positions of
On each trial, participants heard 3 sequential intervals, 2 of which standard and variable signals were set accordingly. During each trial,
contained only the masker, and 1 which contained the masker and stimuli were presented in each of the 3 intervals: One interval con-
probe (assigned randomly). Listeners were required to identify the tained the standard stimulus and the other 2 intervals had the vari-
interval containing the probe. Responses were made verbally indi- able stimulus. The participants had to discriminate the highest pitch
cating the number of the interval containing the probe, for exam- tone among a number of choices or detect the different tones of all.
ple, 1, 2, or 3. Each interval was separated by a 400 ms interstimulus Subjects were given one practice trial before the commencement
interval (ISI). Masked thresholds were measured using a step size of of the test.
5 dB for 4 reversals and 2 dB for 8 reversals, where the geometric
means of the last 8/12 reversals were used to compute each listen- Synchronized Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions (SSOAEs)
er’s masked threshold. A single masked threshold was obtained for SOAEs were collected in the frequency range of 1000 Hz to 5000 Hz
each of the 11 masker–probe combinations and used to construct with a stimulus rate of 11 Hz and stimulus intensity at 70 dB SPL. The
a listener’s PTC at a given CF. Brief task familiarization was provided filter settings were 500 to 10 000 Hz, and a maximum of 300 sweeps
only once, to obtain forward-masked PTCs with minimal learning were averaged. The response was analyzed in a window of 80 ms
effects. after the evoked part of the response had faded away with zero stim-
ulus artifacts after 20 ms. An ear was classified as “with SOAES” when
at least 2 long-lasting peaks exceeding the noise floor by 3 dB were
Response analysis
found in the SSOAE spectrum. Thus, a response with SNR of ≥ 3 dB at
PTCs were interpreted by measuring the quality (Q10) factor of the
any 2 frequencies was taken as “present” for that ear in our study, and
auditory filter. Q10 is a normalized measure of filter sharpness and was
was noted in a Microsoft Windows EXCEL spreadsheet.
used to quantify frequency tuning for each listener. Q10 was com-
puted via a custom-built coding done in MATLAB software using the
RESULTS
formula Q10 = tip_f/bw, where bandwidth (bw) is calculated at 10 dB
The present study aimed to examine the differences in cochlear fre-
above tip frequency. Lastly, Q10 values were tabulated for both Ms
quency selectivity skills between Ms and NMs. The results were com-
and NMs in Microsoft Windows EXCEL spreadsheet for data analysis
puted for DLF, PTCs, and SOAEs, where data were analyzed using the
and comparison.
IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The
results are discussed for each of the tests separately.
Difference Limens for Frequency (DLF)
The pitch discrimination task was tested for 1000 Hz and 4000 Hz Difference Limens for Frequency (DLF)
tone in a 3-interval forced-choice task presented for each listener in The mean DLF score obtained for pure tones for the musician group
their right ear. at 1000 Hz was 7.15 (±3.40) and for 4000 Hz was 24.94 (±7.40). For
NMs, the mean DLF score at 1000 Hz was 31.28 (±15.54) and for 4000
Stimuli Hz was 76.01 (±34.03). DLF scores obtained among Ms were lower
The pitch discrimination task was carried out using the maximum than among NMs for both 1000 Hz and 4000 Hz. The DLF scores mea-
likelihood procedure (MLP) in MATLAB 2014, which uses 250 ms- sured at 4000 Hz were higher than the scores obtained at 1000 Hz.
long pure tones with standard tones being 1000 Hz or 4000 Hz as This trend was seen for both the groups, and the group differences
the chosen and variable tone at different frequencies, to arrive at the were larger for 4000 Hz as well. The group difference in mean values
315J Int Adv Otol 2021; 17(4): 313-318
Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for Q10 Values of PTCs and Dhar study (2013), at any 2 frequencies or more from the fre-
Q10 1000 Hz Q10 4000 Hz quencies measured.26
Musicians
The results revealed that 50% of total Ms had SOAEs present when
Mean 11.35 17.05 tested in both the right and left ears. As for NMs, only 12.5% had
Standard deviation 2.03 2.59 SOAEs present in the right ear and 18.75% had SOAEs present in the
Non-musicians left ear. Chi square test was done to know the difference between
presence and absence of SOAEs between Ms and NMs. The test
Mean 7.61 12.65
results showed that the number of subjects showing the presence
Standard deviation 1.17 2.96 of SOAEs in the right ear was significantly more among Ms than
NMs, but for the left ear, the P value obtained was 0.057, showing
was significant [F(4930.645,1) = 41.299, P < 0.05] at 1000 Hz and no difference.
[F(22090.467,1) = 38.626, P < 0.05] at 4000 Hz.
Effect of Years of Musical Experience DLF & PTC Q10 Values
PTC Spearman’s rank correlation was done to assess the effect of years
The mean Q10 value for the musician group at 1000 Hz is 11.35 of musical experience on DLF & PTC Q10 values. The results, as men-
(±2.03) and for 4000 Hz is 17.05 (±2.59). For NMs, mean Q10 score tioned in the Table 3, show moderate negative correlation [r = −0.471,
at 1000 Hz was 7.61 (±1.17) and for 4000 Hz was 12.65 (±2.96), as P < .05] of years of musical experience with DLF at 4 kHz but not at 1
mentioned in Table 1. kHz. There is also a moderate positive correlation [r = −0.464, P < .05]
for PTC Q10 values at 1 kHz and 4 kHz [r = −0.513, P < .05].
Ms showed higher Q10 values than NMs for both 1000 Hz and 4000 Hz
CFs. The Q10 value was higher for both the groups at 4000 Hz than Thus, the results reveal a significant effect of the number of years of
at 1000 Hz. The difference between the 2 groups was significant [F musical experience on both DLF and PTCs. Significant negative cor-
(118.117,1) = 41.684, P < 0.05] at 1000 Hz and [F (163.739,1) = 21.243, relation for DLF and musical experience at 4 kHz reveals that with
P < 0.05] at 4000 Hz. increasing years of musical experience, DLF values tend to become
lower, and the significant positive correlation for PTC with musical
In addition, Spearman’s rank correlation test was done separately experience shows that with increase in the number of of years of
for Ms and NMs, to compare each musician’s PTCs and DLF values. It musical experience, there’s also an increase in the PTC Q10 values for
showed no correlation [r = −0.328, P > 0.05] between Q10 values of both the frequencies.
PTC and DLF for 1 kHz, but moderate correlation [r = −0.579, P < 0.01]
was found at 4 kHz for the Ms group. There was no significant cor- DISCUSSION
relation for PTCs and DLF scores among NMs at 1 kHz [r = −0.464, In the present study, the frequency resolution skills of Ms were com-
P > 0.05] as well as 4 kHz [r = −0.318, P > 0.05]. pared with NMs via tests like DLF, PTCs, and SOAEs. The results of
statistical analysis showed that Ms have significantly lower average
Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions (SOAEs) DLF scores than NMs at both the frequencies (1000 Hz and 4000 Hz)
Studies have shown that SOAEs have the same mechanism respon- considered for the study. The lower scores indicate better frequency
sible as frequency selectivity in PTCs––active cochlear mechanisms. discrimination. DLF values are seen to be higher in our study than
Thus, SOAEs were recorded for both the ears in all the participants, previous studies, which could be attributed to less number of practice
from 1 kHz to 5 kHz, and SNRs were noted. Table 2 shows the num- trials for NMs, as Kishon-Rabin L, Amir O, Vexler Y, and Zaltz Y (2001)
ber of participants having presence or absence of SOAEs in both the reported, that practice trials have an effect on DLF scores and could
groups. The criteria for present/pass SOAEs was taken as SNR of ≥3 result in NMs also getting smaller DLF values.14 It would also appear
dB, consistent with the findings from the R.R. Baiduc, Jungmee Lee from the current results that Ms outperformed NMs with scores that
were better by almost 4-5-fold at both the frequencies, which echoed
Table 2. Number of Musician and Non-Musician Participants Having
Present/Absent SOAEs
with previous literature.2,13 The DLF scores, when correlated with
years of musical experience, as mentioned in Table 3, showed that
Present SOAEs Absent SOAEs with more musical experience, DLF scores for 4 kHz decreased, sug-
(No. of Participants) (No. of Participants)
gesting that longer duration of musical training/experience results
Right Left Right Left in better frequency discrimination skills, which is in line with previ-
ous literature.14,27 However, this was a moderate correlation. Further,
Musicians (N = 18) 9 9 9 9
this test does not comment on cochlear frequency selectivity alone.
NMs (N = 16) 2 3 14 13
However, it validates previous results that Ms have better frequency
Table 3. Spearman’s Rank Correlation and Significance Value for DLF & PTC at 1000 Hz and 4000 Hz in Association with Musical Experience
DLF PTC Q10 values
Characteristic Frequency
Spearman’s Rank Correlation Value (r) Sig. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Value (r) Sig.
1000 Hz −0.433 0.064 0.464 0.045
4000 Hz −0.471 0.042 0.513 0.025
316Kakar et al. Musical Experience on Cochlear Frequency Resolution
discrimination skills than NMs. It also might be one of those studies Further, there was significant difference in years of musical experi-
with more stringent criteria, but still showing such large differences ence which showed moderate negative correlation for DLF at 4 kHz
in DLF values between Ms and NMs. but not at 1 kHz, suggesting that DLF values decrease with increase
in the number. of years of musical experience. There was also a mod-
For this study, forward-masked PTCs were chosen instead of erate positive correlation for the PTC Q10 values for both 1 and 4 kHz,
simultaneous masking, as they are known to fetch sharper tun- suggesting an increase in Q10 values with an increasing number
ing curves.16,28 Our study paradigm was consistent with the previ- years of musical experience.
ous studies in terms of probe, signal of duration of 35 ms and fixed
intensity of 20 dB SL, normalized frequencies of tonal maskers, and Hence, the present study indicates that cochlear frequency tuning
2 CFs of 1 and 4 kHz.16 This study chose the inclusion criteria of Ms is sharper in Ms when compared to NMs, as PTC Q10 values were
a little differently, as the experimental group included both profes- higher in Ms at both the CFs chosen. The frequency discrimination
sionally trained and self -taught Ms who were equally experienced, skills assessed by DLF also showed better performance, with Ms hav-
which violates the definition of a “musician” given in previous stud- ing about 4-5-fold lower DLFs than NMs at both the frequencies. The
ies, being the ones having received formal training only. The results current study also showed Ms having more participants with pres-
of statistical analysis for PTCs showed Ms having significantly higher ence of SOAEs than NMs, further supporting the fact that Ms might
average Q10 values for forward-masked PTCs than NMs, at both the have more active mechanisms pertaining to cochlea than NMs. The
frequencies. The higher the score, the sharper the auditory filter at number of years of musical experience also influenced the enhance-
that frequency or better the cochlear frequency selectivity skills. This ment of frequency resolution skills in Ms.
is a strong evidence of musicianship enhancing peripheral cochlear
filtering, thereby increasing cochlear spectral resolution in an experi- CONCLUSION
ence-dependent manner. However, it is also in contrast with findings Frequency resolution is fundamental to speech perception and
of a few studies stating no significant difference for 1 kHz CF,16 or no music perception. It aids non-Ms in coarse perceptual processes like
difference at all.19 Moreover, the overall scores for Ms and NMs for listening to speech in degraded conditions, as well as Ms in their finer
both the frequencies were observed to be better than previous stud- aspects of melody and harmony. This study is one of the few which
ies.16,18 This could have been due to usage of the forward-masked have explored the cochlear aspects of fine-pitch perception in Ms.
PTCs paradigm, or that PTCs could have been positively affected Our results strongly support the view that musical training enhances
in the vicinity of SOAEs. In addition, motor responses, in order to peripheral filtering, thereby leading to better frequency resolution
respond for PTCs, were pressed by a third person and not the sub- skills in Ms.
jects themselves, as they would have had a very short, quick release
of the spacebar whenever they detected a probe tone,19 which might Ethics Committee Approval: Ethical clearance was obtained from the in-
be more of a motor reflex than a thoughtful response. Thus verbal house ethical committee of Samvaad Institute of Speech and Hearing.
responses were considered over motor responses.
Informed Consent: All participants gave their informed consent prior to the
administration of the study.
It was also noted that although Ms showed sharper tuning curves
than NMs for both the frequencies, Q10 values were higher at 4 kHz Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
than 1 kHz CF, which might be due to higher cochlear amplifica-
tion or a suppression of non-linearity effect at higher frequencies. It Author Contributions: Concept – K.K., P.B., S.T.; Design – K.K., P.B., S.T.; Supervi-
could also be because of the fact that physiologically, MOC fibers are sion – P.B., S.T.; Funding – K.K.; Materials – K.K.; Data Collection and/or Process-
denser at the basal end of the cochlea,29 therefore more modulatory ing – K.K.; Analysis and/or Interpretation – K.K., P.B., S.T.; Literature Review
gain would be provided leading to better resolution at 4 kHz.30 – K.K.; Writing – K.K., P.B., S.T.; Critical Review – K.K., P.B., S.T.
The years of musical experience were also positively correlated with Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Nike Gnanateja, Post-
PTC Q10 values. Statistical results showed a moderate positive cor- Doctoral Research Associate at the University of Pittsburgh, for MATLAB cod-
relation at both the frequencies, indicating that the more the musical ing, Samvaad Institute of Speech and Hearing for permission to conduct this
experience, the better the frequency selectivity of cochlea. study in-house, and Noel Rambo, Music Composer and Speech Language
Pathologist, for his help with the data collection.
Furthermore, SOAEs are a direct measure of cochlear activity, which
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
is shown to be associated with specialized listeners, though even
people with normal hearing may not have its presence. The pass Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that this study received no financial
criteria or presence of SOAE were taken as SNR of ≥3 dB, which is support.
consistent with previous studies.26 However, SOAEs could have been
taken as present, specifically for each frequency. Ms showed signifi-
REFERENCES
cantly higher probability of SOAEs being present than NMs, when
1. Benet N, Rajalakshmi K. To Find Out Correlation Between FMDL, Short Term
compared in the right ears. The results obtained in this study showed Auditory Working Memory and P300 in Musicians and Non-Musicians.
significant difference between Ms and NMs having present SOAEs, [Master’s thesis]. University of Mysore; 2015.
for right ear. Even though 50% of Ms showed SOAE presence, when 2. Bidelman GM, Krishnan A, Gandour JT. Enhanced brainstem encoding
compared with 18.75% of NMs showing its presence for their left predicts musicians’ perceptual advantages with pitch. Eur J Neurosci.
ears, this difference couldn’t reach a .05 level of significance. 2011;33(3):530 -538. [CrossRef]
317J Int Adv Otol 2021; 17(4): 313-318
3. Shahin A, Roberts LE, Pantev C, Trainor LJ, Ross B. Modulation of P2 17. Bidelman GM, Nelms C, Bhagat SP. Musical experience sharpens human
auditory-evoked responses by the spectral complexity of musical cochlear tuning. Hear Res. 2016;335:40-46. [CrossRef]
sounds. NeuroReport. 2005;16(16):1781-1785. [CrossRef] 18. Akshay M, Devi N. Influence of Musical Proficiency on Psychophysical Tun-
4. Tervaniemi M., Rytkönen M, Schröger E, Ilmoniemi RJ, Näätänen R. Supe- ing Curves and Contralateral Suppression of DPOAEs. [Master’s thesis].
rior formation of cortical memory traces for melodic patterns in musi- University of Mysore; 2015.
cians. Learn Mem. 2001;8(5):295 -300. [CrossRef] 19. Powner AM. Pitch perception of musicians and NMs: a comparison of
5. Koelsch S, Schröger E, Tervaniemi M. Superior pre-attentive auditory psychophysical tuning curves and frequency difference limens. Cap-
processing in musicians. NeuroReport. 1999;10(6):1309-1313. [CrossRef] stones. 2014:Paper 5.
6. Evans EF. Auditory processing of complex sounds: an overview. Philos 20. Moore BCJ, Wan J, Varathanathan A, Naddell S, Baer T. No effect of musi-
Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1992;336(1278):295-306. [CrossRef] cal training on frequency selectivity estimated using three methods.
7. Bulut E, Öztürk G, Taş M, et al. Medial olivocochlear suppression in musi- Trends Hear. 2019;23:2331216519841980. (PubMed: [CrossRef]) (Pub-
cians versus NMs. Physiol Int. 2019;106(2):151-157. [CrossRef] Med Central: [CrossRef]) [CrossRef]
8. Bidelman GM, Schneider AD, Heitzmann VR, Bhagat SP. Musicianship 21. Grassi M, Soranzo A. MLP: a MATLAB toolbox for rapid and reliable audi-
enhances ipsilateral and contralateral efferent gain control to the coch- tory threshold estimation. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(1):20-28.
lea. Hear Res. 2017;344:275-283. [CrossRef] [CrossRef]
9. Kumar P, Grover V, Publius A S, Sanju HK, Sinha S. Assessment of rock 22. Frank T., American National Standards Institute. ANSI update. Am J
musician’s efferent system functioning using contralateral suppression Audiol. 2000;9(1):3-8. [CrossRef]
of otoacoustic emissions. World J Orl Head Neck Surg. 2016;2(4):214-218. 23. Tone Deaf Test. Find out if you are tone deaf or not [Internet]. ToneDeafT-
[CrossRef] est.com. 2016 [accessed April 4, 2020] (Available at: http://tonedeaftest.
10. Perrot X, Collet L. Function and plasticity of the medial olivocochlear com/)
system in musicians: a review. Hear Res. 2014;308:27-40. [CrossRef] 24. Oxenham AJ, Shera CA. Estimates of human cochlear tuning at low levels
11. Wang Y, Qi Z, Yu M, Wang J, Chen R. Characteristic of stimulus frequency using forward and simultaneous masking. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol.
otoacoustic emissions: detection rate, musical training influence, and 2003;4(4):541-554. [CrossRef]
gain function. Brain Sci. 2019;9(10):255. (PubMed: [CrossRef]) (PubMed 25. Green DM. A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds
Central: [CrossRef]) [CrossRef] in a yes-no task. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;93(4 Pt 1):2096-2105.
12. Nikjeh DA, Lister JJ, Frisch SA. Hearing of note: an electrophysiologic [CrossRef]
and psychoacoustic comparison of pitch discrimination between vocal 26. Baiduc RR, Lee J, Dhar S. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, threshold
and instrumental musicians. Psychophysiology. 2008;45(6):994-1007. microstructure, and psychophysical tuning over a wide frequency range
[CrossRef] in humans. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;135(1):300-314. [CrossRef]
13. Micheyl C, Delhommeau K, Perrot X, Oxenham AJ. Influence of musical 27. Zaltz Y, Globerson E, Amir N. Auditory perceptual abilities are associ-
and psychoacoustical training on pitch discrimination. Hear Res. ated with specific auditory experience. Front Psychol. 2017;8:2080.
2006;219(1-2):36-47. [CrossRef] [CrossRef]
14. Kishon-Rabin L, Amir O, Vexler Y, Zaltz Y. Pitch discrimination: are profes- 28. Moore BC. Psychophysical tuning curves measured in simultaneous and
sional musicians better than non-musicians? J Basic Clin Physiol Pharma- forward masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;63(2):524-532. [CrossRef]
col. 2001;12(2)(suppl):125-143. [CrossRef] 29. Liberman MC, Dodds LW, Pierce S. Afferent and efferent innervation of
15. Spiegel MF, Watson CS. Performance on frequencye.com?id=journal the cat cochlea: quantitative analysis with light and electron microscopy.
"iscrimination between NMs. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;76(6):1690-1695. J Comp Neurol. 1990;301(3):443-460. [CrossRef]
[CrossRef] 30. Guinan JJ. Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and
16. Bidelman GM, Schug JM, Jennings SG, Bhagat SP. Psychophysical audi- the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear. 2006;27(6):589-
tory filter estimates reveal sharper cochlear tuning in musicians. J Acoust 607. [CrossRef]
Soc Am. 2014;136(1):EL33-EL39. [CrossRef]
318You can also read
